Navigating the War in Iraq With Christ as Steersman

Paper addressing Moral Case 14 for Fr. James T. Bretzke's Morality Course

San Jose Diocesan Institute for Leadership in Ministry

03/10/04

For an example of how well-meaning people who are generally in agreement can disagree on moral issues, look at George Weigel. Weigel is a biographer of the pope, besides being a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a Roman Catholic theologian who strongly supports the pope in practically all areas except this one. To see that people of faith who have the highest regard for each other can disagree about such an issue indicates that the moral issues are not easy to discern with certainty.

. .  .. I have read the Catholic Worker reports from Catholics who visited Iraq during the embargoes and followed news reports of how much suffering was going on in that country even before the second invasion. I suffered myself with a feeling of helplessness that my government could be doing something I hate. I respect the pope and the American bishops for taking stands on this matter.

This paper attempts to answer the following questions as discussed in Chapter 6, "Navigating in the Morally Complex World: Casuitry with a Human Face," from James T. Bretzke's A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004]. This discussion keeps in mind this quote from Fr. Bretzke: "Keep in mind that the key to the whole pastoral encounter is not deciding who is 'right' or even what the 'correct' decision is, but rather, how can this person be brought into deeper communion with God and God’s family. Thus, center on reconciliation!"

1. What is my pastoral role in this case and what am I being asked to do?

• I have been asked to sit on a panel and to be one of a group that seeks to present the Roman Catholic Just War Theory in the light of the recent war against Iraq. For the purposes of this paper, I will posit that I have been invited because I am a knowledgeable lay person who has graduated from the Institute for Leadership in Ministry and because I am active in adult faith formation. I am supposed to do a presentation, because that is mentioned in the last paragraph describing this case.

• I am specifically being asked to think about the following topic that will probably "come up in the post-presentation open discussion" . . . " confusion over the clear opposition to the War by Pope John Paul II and the American Bishops, and the strong support for the War given by religious conservative political commentators such as George Weigel whose weekly column appears in the diocesan newspaper."

Since this is a group effort, I need to work out with the other members of the panel what we will present and also how best to respond to the potential confusion among audience members. The planning ought to be a process of formation for us presenters. Applying the principles of analysis proposed by Fr. Bretzke, we need to pray and reflect carefully on the moral issues at stake before we say anything. I would try to convince the other members of the panel to look at the event also as a means of formation for those who attend. If planned and executed right, this panel could help all involved along the path of their own process of conscience formation, with love.

1. What are the morally relevant features of this case?

I feel that the course materials would require us to discover the human dimension in this case as in all the other cases, to use the personalist paradigm to understand the people and their situation, "all the factors, facets, and aspects that go into the mix," and to help lead everyone involved to "uncover the morally relevant features of the case." My goal would be to define the current Catholic position in a respectful manner that takes in account the history of this topic and how unfamiliar or disturbing it might be for some to see the pope and the bishops speak out against war. Individuals who serve(d) in the armed forces or have close relatives who do, will need to be treated with consideration.

The dignity of conscience of both sides has to be respected. Thou shalt not kill is a moral imperative, as is Christ's injunction to turn the other cheek. Taken in a strict sense, these would prohibit fighting at all, even to defend our physical selves. Some have taken these teachings personally to the extent of identifying themselves as conscientious objectors.[1]

The Church has taught throughout the centuries that some killing is moral as a means of protecting ourselves. It's a difficult (but necessary) task to discern where the line is between allowable killing and unjustified taking of life.

For an example of how well-meaning people who are generally in agreement can disagree on moral issues, look at George Weigel. Weigel is a biographer of the pope, besides being a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a Roman Catholic theologian who strongly supports the pope in practically all areas except this one. To see that people of faith who have the highest regard for each other can disagree about such an issue indicates that the moral issues are not easy to discern with certainty.

2. What are the presuppositions both I and the other(s) bring to this case?

Many Catholics have been raised on the just war theory and have watched the Catholic Church seemingly leave up to the government the right to define when war is required. The current pope and the American bishops attempts to shape public policy might conflict with some people's expectations. The pope has spoken out to the extent of expressing his views to the heads of state (Bush and Blair), who later decided to invade Iraq anyway.

Fr. Bretske told us when leading the analysis of the case used as an example in this class about use of artificial contraception that the pope hasn't spoken infallibly about artificial contraception. It is equally true that the pope has not spoken infallibly about the justification for the war in Iraq. If it were licit for us to encourage the individuals in the contraception case to form their own conscience in spite of what the Magisterium teaches (which is an opinion of Bretzke's that I don't agree with) we would then of course be obliged to give that leeway to individuals in this case.

One problem is how to pick and choose among the conflicting theories. One presupposition (which may be right or wrong) is that there is one correct answer and others who don't agree are wrong or bad.

3. What further information is needed in order to respond to this case?

Make sure all the appropriate terms are defined: just war theory, pacifism. Be absolutely clear what Pope John Paul II and the bishops have been saying, and about what George Weigel and others like him have been saying. How are others responding to these statements? What are the strengths of these ways of looking at war? What are the weaknesses? What are the common goals of people on both sides of the issue? What alternatives are available? What about these theories on both sides has an effect on "human flourishing"? What did Jesus say about war? In light of "turn the other cheek," how and why did a "just war" theory evolve? Is it a bad theory that needs to be abandoned. Is it a good theory that has been insufficiently tried? (The latter would be true if the just war theory has been used mostly to allow the Church to look the other way when faced with an act of war rather than as a sincerely applied measure of what sort of limited warfare could be morally acceptable.)

People who have watched the Church's tacit agreement with other wars fought in their lifetimes, and who are not used to the Church trying to shape public policy, will probably question the need to change. If the Church did not speak out against war before, why start now? Many members of the military are devout Catholics. It is important to settle the question about whether every Catholic must realign his thinking when a change like this happens.

In this case, I have some strong feelings in both directions. I have read the Catholic Worker reports from Catholics who visited Iraq during the embargoes and followed news reports of how much suffering was going on in that country even before the second invasion. I suffered myself with a feeling of helplessness that my government could be doing something I hate. I respect the pope and the American bishops for taking stands on this matter. I even sent George W. Bush an email before the invasion quoting some of the things that the pope was saying, and I said, "Both the pope and I want you to not do this," obviously to no avail. I cringe to think that from the opening salvo where a suspected hideout of Hussein's was bombed that many innocent lives were taken.

But at the same time I believe that the U.N. should have laid down exact consequences to Saddam Hussein for non-compliance with their terms, and then followed through. The situation was complicated by the years of nose-thumbing by Hussein to the U.N., which is a part of the picture that hasn't been focused on by the media. Without enforcement, he became bolder. The American bishops' statements agreed with my views that Hussein should have been forced to comply, but they wanted the compliance to be enforced by the U.N. George Weigel, on the other hand, has written that the U.N. was not up to the task, and for that reason and others supported Bush and his allies going into Iraq without the consent of the U.N.

In deciding on these topics on the rightness or wrongness of the war, I would give greater weight to the pope and the bishops than to a layman, such as George Weigel. But I don't see any problem with Weigel writing about what he thinks is right according to his own conscience, and my own decision would be made after taking his arguments into consideration. We would need to be consistent with applying the following measurement to this as to any other case: "any sort of 'magisterial positivism' which merely used the latest pronouncements of the Magisterium as the practical exitus and reditus (starting and ending point) principle for all of moral theology would be non-viable . . .." [Bretzke. p. 34] Weigel seems to be acting according to his own conscience, something this class assures us we all must do.

This is also taken from the American bishops statement on November 13, 2002 at: www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.htm: "We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear."

4. What are the moral principles operative in this case?

Thou shalt not kill. When is it legitimate to defend oneself? What is sufficient cause? If there were weapons of mass destruction, would the war have been justified? Would invasion have been justified in any case?

5. What kind of a pastoral response should I make in this case?

Minister pastorally to people, help the people present in a process of good decision making to develop and deepen their moral character, so they can "respond with creative fidelity" to what God is asking them to do.

6. What kind of pastoral strategies would I use in my response?

Depending on the setting and how much time is available, I would ask the panel ahead of time to consider starting and ending the actual event with prayer, to display and quote relevant Bible verses on white boards, mounted pads of newsprint, or slides, and to prepare a handout that people could take home. The handouts could summarize the issues and the current teachings of the pope and the bishops for reading and contemplating and sharing with others who did not attend the panel. The handouts would also have the web locations and other ways listed where the readers can find the documents to read and ponder for themselves.

For the recent conflict, the Bishops quoted the Catechism [which seems to be otherwise not highly regarded by American Catholics in leadership roles, at least when it comes to contraception or other unpopular topics] to suit their purposes, to back up their position that the war in Iraq doesn't meet the criteria for a just war.

Just cause. Reflecting widely accepted moral and legal restraints, Catholic teaching limits just cause for military attack to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain" (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2309). Therefore, the Bishops "find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature."

Legitimate authority. Moral credibility also depends on whether there is legitimate authority for using force. Decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the UN Security Council.

Probability of success and proportionality. The use of force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism #2309). War against Iraq could provoke the very attacks it is meant to prevent and could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East.[3]

If someone expressed confusion after hearing the panel's presentation, I would ask that person for his or her thoughts and feelings. If someone used condemnatory language against what the panel said, I would try to find out what the area of disagreement was. In so far as possible within the available time, I would try to establish a commonality of goals that might lead to more openness to consider other ways to look at the topic. I would try to find out if the person doing the objecting had a history that would make the current situation hard to accept, such as a career in the military or young family members currently serving in one of the armed service. In closing I would encourage them to read the pope's and bishops' statements and pray and ask God for guidance. I would tell the audience I would be available for one in one discussions to follow up on this topic.

7. Who, and with whom, is reconciliation most necessary?

If a person gets angry at what he or she hears from this panel, that person may be upset by feeling that the validity of his or her own military career or that of a close family member is being challenged or belittled. If so, the person needs some reconciliation with the changed behavior. The person might just the need the new information, to be assured that he is being heard and respected, and then need to be left with prayer to discern his or her own response.

I would suggest the following as a model for a closing prayer (which is taken from Statement on the Possibility of War with Iraq by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony: